Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Sarah Palin doesn't wear well

Actually, I did not want to write about politics today. But the Republicans make it necessary. Mandatory. Obligatory. And so damned easy.

The RNC spent $150,000 to dress up Sarah Palin. That’s more than I paid for my condo.

And then the handlers prop her up in front of Wal-Mart to give a Joe Six Pack speech.

What’s the word I’m looking for?

Hypocrite.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Remember "SHE'S THE HOTTIE"...UGH. Perhaps they could have visited Frederick's of Hollywood, since CELEBRITY seems to be her intention!!!

Anonymous said...

Funny thing is when I've seen her on the campaign trail, I thought to myself that her clothes weren't very professional and that obviously they had lower standards in Alaska for what was acceptable gubernatorial dress. Little did I know those weren't her clothes. Ugly, unprofessional stuff that now turns out to be incredibly expensive ugly, unprofessional stuff.

Obviously the person who helps dress Norm Coleman must have helped on this one....Sharon

Jeff Hebert said...

I have to say that in general these kinds of "OMG look what they're spending to look good!" kinds of stories to be silly and irrelevant. Of course they spend money to look good, given how important that is in our culture. Imagine if Nixon had invested ten bucks in a good shave before his debate with JFK and how different that might have turned out.

On general principle, I'd give this story about as much weight as I did the "John Edwards' $400 haircut" one.

But.

Republicans used that John Edwards story to essentially say, without saying it, that John Edwards (like all Democratic men) was gay and so you shouldn't vote for him. Which is shitty.

As you say, George, the story here is not the money spent on clothes (although it's a lot) but on the hypocrisy of criticizing the other guy for something you're much, much guiltier of.

Plus they're trying to present the six-figure-earning, private-jet-owning Sarah Palin as just an ordinary hockey mom. But I guaran-damn-tee you, there aren't a lot of hockey moms making enough to spend $100,000 on clothes, which just makes that whole angle look like rank political posturing.

It's hard to come off as "authentic" that way, isn't it?

Still, at the end of the day I'd be a lot happier if all of these sorts of stories were given the attention they deserve -- none.

Ollie Gravis said...

I hear tell she's gotta give up those fancy duds to charity. My live-in boss (that'd be the little lady) wants to know where they're passing them out so she can pick of a frock to wear to the local football game. I'm against that cause we'll have to report the windfall as income to that IRS bunch. That won't be good.

Pile on top of that, all of our friends and relations will start in to thinking we're loaded and hit us of for a loan.

Truth is we're too short on cash money for a shopping trip to the local WalMart.

You can't give the emperoress' new clothes to the homeless womenfolk cause they'd get mugged. Best sell em on Ebay and donate that to homeless shelters.

Anonymous said...

If they spent a 150 thou to dress her then somebody has been robbed...I thought she bought those outfits at Wal Mart...Haven't seen her in anything representing fashion...but guess I was just looking at her pretty face. Bill

Ollie Gravis said...

Bill, put on your lookin glasses...

I saw "Pretty Woman" in a flashy red leather or plastic number. Those ain't in any WalMart I know. Course I don't hang out in the Ladies section.

Check out this slide show:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

JohnSBoles said...

Pretty face. Not so much.

Now these on the other hand...

http://miraulam.multiply.com/video/item/46/Women_In_Film_-_Updated

National Politics

News on Aging

Geriatric Medicine News

Senior Health Insurance News

Social Security & Medicare News

Posts From Other Geezer Blogs